RedTank:DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat. Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens? The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared? That's all good and well and can be logically argued for. But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.

I'd prefer that idiot/insane 20 year olds don't go to schools strapped to kill, if we could have our d'ruthers'. But in this situation, I'd prefer teachers to have the possibility of shooting him rather than no option but try to talk down a kid who might not pause before he begins shooting or wait for the police to arrive.

The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

BSABSVR:theBigBigEye: The guy is already a felon, so I can only see this woman's act of talking him out of killing himself as a mistake!

We help save human beings. Not felons.

H-U-M-A-N.

F-E-L-O-N.

Both are spelled differently, and therefore, both differ in types of living organisms. The only difference is that one just LOOKS like a human being, and is useless in its existence.

You're right. She should have riled the armed and unstable guy up for awhile just to see what happened. You're a smart one.

Well, at the very farking LEAST, the police could have executed him with guns blazing right after the entire building was evacuated. Then they could have just wrote it off as "he attacked first," police corruption be damned.

After that, send bills for the bullets to his equally worthless parents. Preferably to the tune of $10 million per round. Payable immediately.

Wile_E._Quixote:This goes to show that we should put front-office clerks in all or schools. It's the only way to be sure.

/who knew?

Simply having a front-office clerk in the school is not enough. What if the clerk can't get from the front office to a classroom in time? We need a front-office clerk in every classroom in every school.

stevarooni:The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

You don't see the problem as we need to have schools with locked, bullet-proof doors?

Fuggin Bizzy:stevarooni: Guns can be convenient, but don't typically land the highest body count.

You're right. Let's not do anything.

I'm sorry, please let me fill in the blank of action. People who are reported as potential dangers to themselves and others should be hospitalized/institutionalized for the safety of society as a whole. That'd be something.

Fuggin Bizzy: stevarooni: Then someone is intentionally lying to you, or unintentionally stating exaggerations as fact.

Wayne LaPierre. Heard of him?

To be fair, though, once "a bad guy with a gun" starts shooting, a gun is the most effective way of stopping him. He'll also stop when he runs out of ammunition, the police arrive, or he gets tackled by some lucky bystanders who run him. But yeah, as written, as an absolute, it's not entirely correct.

Link"The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

"In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."

mediablitz:stevarooni: The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

You don't see the problem as we need to have schools with locked, bullet-proof doors?

I do, yes, but when divorced parents can't act rationally, when the homeless meander aimlessly, some level of building security seems to be necessary. The best solution would be teachers and staff aware of who should and shouldn't be in the building and handle it; that would take care of 99% of what actually happens in schools.

stevarooni:RedTank: DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat. Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens? The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared? That's all good and well and can be logically argued for. But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.

I'd prefer that idiot/insane 20 year olds don't go to schools strapped to kill, if we could have our d'ruthers'. But in this situation, I'd prefer teachers to have the possibility of shooting him rather than no option but try to talk down a kid who might not pause before he begins shooting or wait for the police to arrive.

The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

The schools-as-fortresses thing is stupid as hell anyway. Hundreds of people flow in and out every day. If you likit the numer of entrances and seal windows and etc. its still easy for someone with ill intent to get in and harder for everyone else to run away.

stevarooni:I'm sorry, please let me fill in the blank of action. People who are reported as potential dangers to themselves and others should be hospitalized/institutionalized for the safety of society as a whole. That'd be something.

The safety of society as a whole sounds so farking funny coming from you. You don't even see it, do you? Go ahead and violate their constitutional rights, but don't you DARE suggest taking away guns!

Finally, a proper use of the Hero tag. To look this guy in the eye and talk him down like that when I'm sure the policy is to hide under the desk... she has bigger balls than the entire SWAT team outside. Someone buy that woman drinks for life.

How bout that you guntarded farking troglodytes? It would've been much better had she been armed and just killed the dude right? Or maybe if the kids had guns they could've done it. Either way we should do everything possible to make sure that this kind of shiat never happens again and these kids get some tactical firearms training.

stevarooni:I do, yes, but when divorced parents can't act rationally, when the homeless meander aimlessly, some level of building security seems to be necessary. The best solution would be teachers and staff aware of who should and shouldn't be in the building and handle it; that would take care of 99% of what actually happens in schools.

stevarooni:I'd prefer that idiot/insane 20 year olds don't go to schools strapped to kill, if we could have our d'ruthers'. But in this situation, I'd prefer teachers to have the possibility of shooting him rather than no option but try to talk down a kid who might not pause before he begins shooting or wait for the police to arrive.

Ok, in a scenario where teachers have guns what happen when:a.) School shootings still occureb.) There is an accident with a gun at a schoolc.) All of the above

One of those will happen, 100% certainty. I would bet a combination of a & b. Then you're forced to weigh lives vs lives. The ideal scenario is this doesn't happen at all.

Remove the stimga of mental health and get people the help they need.

The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

Yes, but what will happen now. If someone ever let's someone else in the school then that person goes to jail? Is there ever a scenario where that may be abused or even impossible to prevent? What prevents someone from accosting someone on their way to the school and stealing their id badge or holding them hostage until they open the door? Again there are solutions to these issues but they require additional security measures turning schools into the equivalency of prison security.

mediablitz:stevarooni: I'm sorry, please let me fill in the blank of action. People who are reported as potential dangers to themselves and others should be hospitalized/institutionalized for the safety of society as a whole. That'd be something.

The safety of society as a whole sounds so farking funny coming from you. You don't even see it, do you? Go ahead and violate their constitutional rights, but don't you DARE suggest taking away guns!

Too funny.

Wait, which rights? The right to keep and bear arms is another right. But yeah, they shouldn't be simply thrown into an oubliette the instant they start saying "strange things". There are some pretty sound criteria out there for people who are a danger to society. If they're adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, yep, their guardian/someone with power of attorney needs to get rid of those guns.

drew46n2:How bout that you guntarded farking troglodytes? It would've been much better had she been armed and just killed the dude right? Or maybe if the kids had guns they could've done it. Either way we should do everything possible to make sure that this kind of shiat never happens again and these kids get some tactical firearms training.

Way to be JUST LIKE the "other side" you are railing against.

Absolutes only!!!

Meanwhile, a 71 year old man shot and killed an escaped convict who was holding him (and his wife) hostage by gunpoint. 4 hours worth of talking solved nothing.

stevarooni:Wait, which rights? The right to keep and bear arms is another right. But yeah, they shouldn't be simply thrown into an oubliette the instant they start saying "strange things". There are some pretty sound criteria out there for people who are a danger to society. If they're adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, yep, their guardian/someone with power of attorney needs to get rid of those guns.

This approach was presented in my state (Montana). Right wingers wouldn't even allow it to be discussed on the legislature floor, or in committee. Not even DISCUSSED.

Seems pretty damn logical and straightforward (domestic violence multiple offenders were also included) to me. But it can't even be discussed.

RedTank:DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat. Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens? The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared? That's all good and well and can be logically argued for. But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.

1) I support any improvement to the mental health initiative2) I was pointing out that you can't look at this, and then at other school shooting incidents and go "HEY GAIZ IT WORKED HERE IT WILL ALWAYS WORK"3) Please take note of the word 'Copycat'. There are additional issues at play.4) Go soapbox off of another comment.

mediablitz:stevarooni: Wait, which rights? The right to keep and bear arms is another right. But yeah, they shouldn't be simply thrown into an oubliette the instant they start saying "strange things". There are some pretty sound criteria out there for people who are a danger to society. If they're adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, yep, their guardian/someone with power of attorney needs to get rid of those guns.

This approach was presented in my state (Montana). Right wingers wouldn't even allow it to be discussed on the legislature floor, or in committee. Not even DISCUSSED.

Seems pretty damn logical and straightforward (domestic violence multiple offenders were also included) to me. But it can't even be discussed.

That's why you see the term "gun nuts" bandied about.

The devil's in the details, mediablitz. I don't know those details, but I've seen some slick laws that, if taken literally (as laws ought to be), could prohibit a lot of generally law-abiding, sane people from owning firearms.

Also a Montanan (And hunter. And gun owner.), but this is a national problem. We can't even restrict felons and terrorists from obtaining weapons without the gun sales lobby drowning out the discussion by wailing "Tyranny!!"

DeathByGeekSquad:RedTank: DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat. Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens? The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared? That's all good and well and can be logically argued for. But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.

1) I support any improvement to the mental health initiative2) I was pointing out that you can't look at this, and then at other school shooting incidents and go "HEY GAIZ IT WORKED HERE IT WILL ALWAYS WORK"3) Please take note of the word 'Copycat'. There are additional issues at play.4) Go soapbox off of another comment.

1. Good2. Fair enough, but you still support some guns in schools. Wrong in my mind.3. Copycat is fine, it has no bearing on anything - In this case, this guy got talked out of it and I'm assuming he has mental issues that may be addressed now. If he would have done this in a different school he may have been shot dead. That is the issue, I don't trust armed citizens to make a distinction between talking and shooting.4. But I want to soapbox off your comment... you inspired me to write, no one else did. consider it a compliment.

mediablitz:drew46n2: How bout that you guntarded farking troglodytes? It would've been much better had she been armed and just killed the dude right? Or maybe if the kids had guns they could've done it. Either way we should do everything possible to make sure that this kind of shiat never happens again and these kids get some tactical firearms training.

Way to be JUST LIKE the "other side" you are railing against.

Absolutes only!!!

Meanwhile, a 71 year old man shot and killed an escaped convict who was holding him (and his wife) hostage by gunpoint. 4 hours worth of talking solved nothing.

That 71 year old man is CLEARLY a gun nut, right?

He clearly the answer is more and more guns in more and more hands. Once we're all CCL qual'd we can all walk around like the Tombstone masturbatory fantasy these nuts exist in.

Ker_Thwap:Bah, this is a mental health concern, I could care less about the gun control posturing on both sides. Credit to the nice lady for her courage and empathy.

Yep, what many people seem to realize, but can not accept and act on (policy-based activism) is that people kill people. You can reduce the total number of homicides by banning guns, but there will still be beatings with blunt objects and stabbings (though admittedly fewer overall deaths). Feel free to attack the source (mental health) as well as contributing factors as they're not mutually exclusive.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer:CygnusDarius: She would've been more effective if she had a gun. No, two guns.

How do you get more effective than "bad guy caught, no one hurt?"

Well, I was being sarcastic towards previous comments in gun threads. But yes, this was the best outcome. Although the best outcome should've been the guy looking at his stash before he left home and think "WTF am I doing? This is wrong!" and stay at home eating Ho-Hos, but this is the second best option.

stevarooni:The devil's in the details, mediablitz. I don't know those details, but I've seen some slick laws that, if taken literally (as laws ought to be), could prohibit a lot of generally law-abiding, sane people from owning firearms

You know why you "don't know the details"? Because the right wing leaders of the legislature block ANY discussion.

Making excuses for not allowing discussion makes you part of the problem.

I own several guns. I hunt. I trap shoot. I believe there are pragmatic, common sense steps we can take to reduce suicide deaths, and domestic violence deaths (#1 and #2 here in Montana for gun related deaths).

Abuse Liability:Ker_Thwap: Bah, this is a mental health concern, I could care less about the gun control posturing on both sides. Credit to the nice lady for her courage and empathy.

Yep, what many people seem to realize, but can not accept and act on (policy-based activism) is that people kill people. You can reduce the total number of homicides by banning guns, but there will still be beatings with blunt objects and stabbings (though admittedly fewer overall deaths). Feel free to attack the source (mental health) as well as contributing factors as they're not mutually exclusive.

No one disagrees with this. There are many non lethal forms of self defense against assault, including but not limited to mace and tazers.

stevarooni:could prohibit a lot of generally law-abiding, sane people from owning firearms.

Every gun owner is sane and law-abiding until they aren't. This argument is just retarded on its face.

Warthog:I call shenanigans. A school front office employee who appears to be something other than fat, lazy, and disinterested about everything in life other than snack break? There exists no such thing.

Still bitter? It's ok. When you get older, have a career, and start to acquire fun toys you'll find that whatever happened in high school wasn't really as important as you thought it was.

RedTank:mediablitz: drew46n2: He clearly the answer is more and more guns in more and more hands. Once we're all CCL qual'd we can all walk around like the Tombstone masturbatory fantasy these nuts exist in.

Oh look! More absolutes!

You are no different than the people who says guns are always the answer. You are unwilling to talk rationally about the issue.

Congrats on being the problem.

No guns in schools, sorry. Statistically how many gun accidents occur each year? How many of those accidents occur with trained responsible gun owners? I'll bet the answer to the latter is not zero.

Don't talk about who to give guns to talk about how to prevent people from doing this in the first place (mental health).

Trying to figure out where you saw me suggesting we need guns in schools. I never did. That's why I can't figure it out.

There's a lot of wharblegarble from both sides of the gun control debate.

Most of the anti-gun or gun-control measures being suggested appear to have little thought behind them. Assault weapons aren't involved with crime - they're just ~scary~. Massive restrictions on suppressor ownership didn't fix a non-existent assassination problem. Mentally incompetent people don't tend to acquire guns from legal/regulated sources, and so on with these trite changes that ignore the cultural or societal problems that are the root cause of gun issues such as safety and firearms crime. No one ever considers what will a new restriction or regulation 'fix'.

This lack of foresight is endemic in gun debates, and we so often end up spending time, money, political capital and voter interest on or fighting non-functional 'solutions'. We appear to lack answers to even basic questions like "How much time and money is being spent to correct those few situations this technological fix claims value in?" or " Is this an efficient application of our resources?"This is not a case of 'every little bit helps' - time and money are finite resources, and they should be spent where they achieve the best outcome.

If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?

The problem is most gun legislation right now is completely irrational. On one side we have those who are conditioned to be terrified of guns, and on the other, we have people who fear any regulation - even reasonable regulation - as a threat to their way of life, an unacceptable lockdown by big brother. Both scramble for facts, but the heart of both sides is driven by some irrational terror. It'd be nice if this resulted in a stalemate, but that's not how it works. Instead, one side has an agenda to use reasonable restrictions in unreasonable ways (see Chicago, for example) and the other side is forced to fanatically defend themselves from any new restriction, no matter how rational, lest it be used against the spirit of the restriction.

... it's sad that something that costs lives is still not yet important enough to consider rationally at the federal, state, or city level.